Here is Tesla’s own summary of the key facts as presented by Tesla CEO Elon Musk:

As the State of Charge log shows, the Model S battery never ran out of energy at any time, including when Broder called the flatbed truck.

The final leg of his trip was 61 miles and yet he disconnected the charge cable when the range display stated 32 miles. He did so expressly against the advice of Tesla personnel and in obvious violation of common sense.

In his article, Broder claims that “the car fell short of its projected range on the final leg.” Then he bizarrely states that the screen showed “Est. remaining range: 32 miles” and the car traveled “51 miles,” contradicting his own statement (see images below). The car actually did an admirable job exceeding its projected range. Had he not insisted on doing a nonstop 61-mile trip while staring at a screen that estimated half that range, all would have been well. He constructed a no-win scenario for any vehicle, electric or gasoline.

On that leg, he drove right past a public charge station while the car repeatedly warned him that it was very low on range.

Cruise control was never set to 54 mph as claimed in the article, nor did he limp along at 45 mph. Broder in fact drove at speeds from 65 mph to 81 mph for a majority of the trip and at an average cabin temperature setting of 72 F.

At the point in time that he claims to have turned the temperature down, he in fact turned the temperature up to 74 F.

The charge time on his second stop was 47 mins, going from -5 miles (reserve power) to 209 miles of Ideal or 185 miles of EPA Rated Range, not 58 mins as stated in the graphic attached to his article. Had Broder not deliberately turned off the Supercharger at 47 mins and actually spent 58 mins Supercharging, it would have been virtually impossible to run out of energy for the remainder of his stated journey.

For his first recharge, he charged the car to 90%. During the second Supercharge, despite almost running out of energy on the prior leg, he deliberately stopped charging at 72%. On the third leg, where he claimed the car ran out of energy, he stopped charging at 28%. Despite narrowly making each leg, he charged less and less each time. Why would anyone do that?

The above helps explain a unique peculiarity at the end of the second leg of Broder’s trip. When he first reached our Milford, Connecticut Supercharger, having driven the car hard and after taking an unplanned detour through downtown Manhattan to give his brother a ride, the display said “0 miles remaining.” Instead of plugging in the car, he drove in circles for over half a mile in a tiny, 100-space parking lot. When the Model S valiantly refused to die, he eventually plugged it in. On the later legs, it is clear Broder was determined not to be foiled again.

Tesla paints a different story.

Was Broder driving at the speeds he indicated? Well, Tesla’s data shows otherwise and as we mentioned before, Broder broke past 80 miles per hour, a recipe for a ticket for sure. No ticket? Okay, well it still saps range when whizzing along at illegal speeds.

Tesla graphic showing speed throughout the drive.

“In Mr. Broder’s case, he simply did not accurately capture what happened and worked very hard to force our car to stop running,” claims Elon Musk. And do you need more evidence than this graphic below, which shows Broder driving in circles to kill the Tesla Model S? These data points are taken directly from the Model S’ on-board computer. Hard to deny this?

Data points showing Model S driving in circles.

Musk’s opening statement closed with this request directed at the NY Times:

“When the facts didn’t suit his opinion, he simply changed the facts. Our request of The New York Times is simple and fair: please investigate this article and determine the truth. You are a news organization where that principle is of paramount importance and what is at stake for sustainable transport is simply too important to the world to ignore.”

We don’t believe for a single second that the NY Times will take a back seat in this matter. So, look for a response to come soon. But does the NY Times have substantial data to support its side? We doubt it. For now, we’ll call this one a win for Tesla Motors and it seems Tesla feels the same way as one of it spokespersons issued this statement:

“Please note, no one from Tesla – including Elon – will be providing additional comment on this topic moving forward, as we feel the blog speaks for itself. At this time, this post is the company’s final statement on the issue.”

Same here. Hard to deny the data from the logs and there are definitely major inconsistencies with the story. Musk is still brave to call out the NYT like this though.

I think I take back my recommendation of letting Broder try the trip again. If Consumer Reports was clever, they would take their on Model S, repeat the trip without consulting Tesla or NYT, provide their own findings and capitalize on all the current attention.

In frigid weather, this Tesla Model S owner took her first road trip in her new car. She drove to Rochester, MN, a trip which normally takes her 16 hours each way to complete in an ICE vehicle. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t end well.

Thanks for the info. Before reading the article I had independently calculated that the car will lose miles plugged into 120 as indicated by the travel story in your link.

One point on Musk’s rebuttal. He says the car never ran out of juice. If the estimated range was 32 miles and the car drove 51 (due to very conservative driving) , how could there be much state of charge left? I don’t see a state-of- charge graph here.

Just looked at “Tesla Graphic 2”. The car clearly ran out of juice at about 470 miles. Also, the car state of charge went from 90 to 25 as the reporter had indicated at the motel. Driving 0.6 miles in a parking lot trying to find a parking spot or looking for outlets is not “joyriding or galavanting”.

This needs clarification- Does the Dashboard range estimate = Battery SOC from log? It would seem that different terms are being put forth by Tesla (at one point talking about range estimate and then the other talking about SOC). If the range estimator/indicator is not a true indication of the SOC of the battery, it would explain how the reporter got more miles than indicated, it would also explain how the car’s display could indicate 0 miles left (with all the associated warnings, reduced performance?) yet not reach 0% SOC for the battery.

From the NYT, I’m not at all surprised. Tesla is simply being treated like a conservative. When it comes to supporting NYT orthodoxy, the ends justify the means. Ah technology … a hundred channels of telemetry to refute their lies, and a CEO willing to do it. I have even more respect for Musk now. It’s a good day. 🙂

the article was shaky from day one. not surprised considering the writer’s long history of anti EV, anti green, “pro-smoke” agenda. did anyone bother to read his accompanying article published the same day?? bashing EVs and touting CNG? THAT should have told you everything you needed to know about his motives

My analysis of their motive: Tesla markets their cars based on quality and performance, not liberal “green speak”. They have leap-frogged the rest of the industry, including President Obama’s success story General Motors. And they sell their cars mostly to “rich people” that “aren’t paying their fair share”. These things have made Tesla a target of the left, or at least the NYT.

I knew that bastard was lying!!!!!! Even his own map tells a different story. Please examine the first leg of his journey
He said oh I did not speed,… then when he heard of the on board computer he changed his story to….
Oh I did 71-72 mph maybe a mile or two…..bull shi..tttt!!!

He drove from DC to the first supercharger…. 114 miles….in only…. 84 minutes….. (simple math)

That equals ……81 mph….. & that’s just the AVERAGE…. meaning that there are times he went over that…
The PUNK should get 3 SPEEDING TICKETS….as he crossed the three states. Tesla’s got prof & his own map is self- incriminating.

I think this is BIG OIL, BIG AUTO & BOEING ( Musk embarrassed them on their inferior battery architecture)!!

Taser54
This is no different that your ICE car when it tells you that you have 0 miles to Empty. You actually have 1-1.5 gallons of gas left so you can run to the gas station.
it’s an indicator that u r running dangerous low & u need to refuel.

NYT has come out with it’s refute saying they stand behind Broder’s claims.

They said he did just what the Tesla employees advised him to do… So what’s
next if they don’t back down? Lawsuit? I hope so.

BBC and Top Gear won against Tesla in the U.K.. I think he
proponderance of evidence ( data ) here in Tesla’s case would make it a slam
dunk here in the USA. Boy the NYT has some ‘splainin’ to do!

Theories vary as to why Broder and the NYT would be motivated to smear
Tesla. We remember Edward Niedermeyer a couple years back stickin’
it real good to Volt on NYT’s “The Truth About Cars.com” article. I’m
puzzled as well as to the motivation behind slamming EVs. One would
think that the very left-leaning paper would support Tesla and all EV
makers being the green thing to do. One theory that’s been discussed
is that Elon is a rich businessman who borrowed $460 million from the
feds to start Model S production, and the NYT is more against rich
getting tax breaks ( only the wealthy can afford Model S ) than they are
for green transportation technology.

Again, this is odd, because, like the Huffington Post, the NYT is
considered the politico-correct platform for wealthy Democrats…

Hopefully this story gets lots of traction and the truth will come out!

Thanks for that link. Good rebuttal. Still, Broder is either dishonest OR an idiot. Either way spells loser. I usually do not take the bait on the drama but if you love EVs you find yourself erring in favor of Tesla.

Just looked at “Tesla Graphic 2″. The car clearly ran out of juice at about 470 miles. Also, the car state of charge went from 90 to 25 as the reporter had indicated at the motel. Driving 0.6 miles in a parking lot trying to find a parking spot or looking for outlets is not “joyriding or galavanting”.

Steve, I think your #1 is it. I think it was Mark Twain who said, “I never let the truth get in the way of a good story.”

When I saw the photo of the Model S on a flatbed, I knew the author was looking for a “good story”. If he had simply driven conservatively and charged fully (and when cold) we’d all be discussing something else, like when we’ll get to see the range numbers on the 2013 Leaf. For sure Broder didn’t come clean on his stupidity, but to his defense, he was probably trying to drive in ICE mode (not thinking) to emulate most drivers and to show a worse case scenario. To call the article a lie or fake is (through essentially it is) would be hard to prove in a court of law, so he and the NYT wins by selling papers and eyeballs. Such is our sad state of our press.

Elon Musk is on fire…..Broder openly lied, got busted, and should be fired…immediately.

I smell legal action coming.

But this is not the only instance of a ‘reporter/blogger’ writing a less than ‘balanced’ review of an EV, hybrid or plug-in vehicle.

I think with the enhanced ability of electrified vehicles to track the cars functions and movements, manufacturers should review data once the vehicle is returned, and correlate the data with the review.

This process should be able to shut down much of the supposedly ‘real world’ vs EPA mileage conflicts.

For example….driving illegally at 85-90, when writing he was driving as 65-70. Stating climate control was on low, when it was blasting heat or air conditioning all the way.

In view of the above, the New York Times is on reasonable ground (the guy is not a professional driver after all, and cannot be expected to hypermill, but just drive the thing like an Impala), and Musk, sorry to say, is playing a very weak hand. His inability to acknowledge any imperfections in the car is to these eyes embarrassing. If he cares about the stock price he should cut his losses and go on.

All sound points Bill except for the point about him not being a professional driver.
Forget all the nuances of the cold weather chemistry and the effects on range and how it compares to the specifications. Nothing to do with what he did. It is much simpler than that. Consider this:

You are in a gasoline car in a mileage test of any kind.
(Or any licensed driver for that matter in any powered auto)
It is 10 degrees outside.
Your gauge reads 32 miles of fuel
Your trip is double that.
You fail to refuel.
You are an idiot.
And then you write a review how you were stranded.
“You’re and idiot babe, it’s a wonder you still know how to breathe….” RZ
I do despise negative spin.

Mark, he was given bad information by Tesla technical representative on the phone. I’m sure when he was greeted with a surprising 25 miles range after starting off from the motel, the Tesla Rep said to ignore the number since its a “Software Glitch” , or “Conditioning the battery by driving it will raise the range”.

If you read my link to the minnesota story, you’ll see she didn’t get any battery conditioning either.

If he hadn’t called, everyone would have been ALL OVER him for not asking for advice. But, he did ask. The information he was given was clearly nonsense.

Auto manufacturers never give out bad information about their cars (Kia years ago was an exception:, they told me all known problems with their product: Bravo!).

As I say, my main interest in this discussion is an enhanced education regarding Model S driveability in Western New York. I now have almost all the information I need. It looks like the electricity cost for me would be quite high during our cold winters. I was on the fence, but due to inflexibility @ Tesla (more so than with my Roadster), it pushed my decision over to DECLINE. In view of the greatly increased operational expense (13 cents/kwh here and rising), it was in retrospect a wise decision.

I hear ya Bill, and I think the biggest mistake by Tesla’s technical support was underestimating all the variables of what people can do wrong. Given that Broder just had a close call the day before, conventional wisdom would tell you to wait for the charge.
If any “one” of the variables were thrown out he would have been OK. Had he driven the speed limit, he would have been OK. Had he relied on seat warmers opposed to heating the cabin, he would have been OK. Had he charged to 80 percent capacity, as all EV drivers should on extended trips, he would have been OK. Had the test happened in more moderate temperature. Had he been driving an EREV or PHEV.

There are two main issues here. Can the public rely on EVs for long distance travel and/or can Tesla’s super chargers make this a reality? NYT will argue that it was Tesla specific, but read it again. They made negative spin implications to the industry at large. The EREV technology like the Chevy Volt allows for ANYTHING to happen with the current battery technology . For Tesla, the answer is YES with an asterix as you point out. All manufacturers are learning about cold weather limitations, (not catastrophic failure). The thing that makes me blog with a little less sanity than normal is the negative spin. For the most part InsideEVs does not rely on this tactic to sell news. NYT is guilty as charged on this one.
The dust does seem to be settling with the truth in the middle.

Well, I’m constantly trying to find the truth in these stories. So far I haven’t seen anyone interested into what is to me a VERY BIG DEAL, but then I have an interest because I live in a cold climate. People from southern California couldn’t care less, but people from minnesota might want to lend an ear.

My conclusions:

A). Model S in very cold weather loses battery capacity at an 1840 watt drain rate. This compares with the Roadster’s estimated 450 watt drain rate in very cold weather.

B). Model S’s recharge rate using the model S supplied 120 volt cord will be 1440 watts ideally, possibly under 1300 in practical conditions. This means that the 120 volt cord CANNOT charge the cord in cold weather, and in very cold weather will actually lose miles even though constantly plugged in.

C). Why? I would guess its that 4 times the square inches are exposed to the elements in the model S as compared to the roadster, and that it just takes a huge amount of electricity to keep the battery sufficiently warm, other from the attached charger dock, or failing that, the battery itself.

D). What this means is that someone ina very cold climate with only a 120 volt outlet to charge from, CANNOT drive the car in cold weather without a substitute method to get more juice into the car, as it will continually require in cold weather.

One will note the recent CNN test drive did not lose 65 miles of range at a motel, simply because he didn’t stop, also it was much warmer outside. The Rochester, Minnesota woman who took 65 hours to make a 16 hour trip was not so lucky, and incidentally, proved my heat loss calculations correct if you happen to read her story carefully.

“What happened instead is that it was negative four degrees outside (-25*F windchill) and I lost a LOT more range on my way to Dixon than I should have…”

NOTE TO REGINA: Read your own posts. Then get back to yourself.

As I posted elsewhere in these comments, I do not own an EV or Tesla stock. I do have a physics background. ALL commercially viable battery technology of today PERFORMS POORLY IN THE COLD. You don’t even need subzero temps.

any RV park will take J1772 hint hint
“to broder”; a verb, as in “to purposely or with willful ignorance run down the battery pack of an electric vehicle to the point that it no longer moves the vehicle.”

Thanks for the calculated comments. However, this illustrates the shortcoming in charging infrastructure, not so much the car… by her own admission. She will plan better next time. The comment above about hitching posts is most relevant.

I think the NYT is the one on shaky ground, now trying to protect an idiot reporter, ignorant of the technology on board the Tesla… like a black box recorder.

The stakes are high, and Musk is a high-rolling gambler to be sure. But that’s what it takes to create a new car INDUSTRY in the face of the entrenched Detroit players, not to mention a few others… like BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Nissan… et al.

If you know Elon’s obsessive fastidiousness in personally inspecting every S that goes out the door, you will realize that he knows full well the range of possible “imperfections” that could manifest in a product as complicated as a production automobile.

6 Model S drivers in a convoy will retrace broders route from DC to Connecticut and back, today the 16th, stay overnight and return. one drove down from NY. 3 will leave from Rockville, Md Tesla service center and meetup with 3 more at Delaware Super charger. None of them will “Broder” (forget to charge) and expect to make the trip easily.

New EV term? “To broder” definition: forget to charge or not fully charge

There is a lot of silliness, both in the article and its response, and the comments here. A lot of heat, very little light. I am reminded of the early days of combustion cars, a little more than a century ago – constantly and consistently outperformed by horse drawn carriages. Bugs aplenty; terrible roads; drivers ill-trained for the type of vehicle. By 1930, 25 years later, nearly all those horses were gone (at least outside of very rural areas).

Imagine if those early automobiles were subjected to the same kind of microcoverage that the EVs of today are getting! We’d still be looking for hitching posts…

EVs are the vehicles of tomorrow, whether tomorrow is 25 years away (as the example above was), 10 years away or 50 years away. Our driving styles, expectations and habits will all change – just as they did when automatic transmissions and cruise control came in. So, EVs – today, 2013 – have batteries that don’t cut it well in frigid temperatures. I guess, then, that we should bag the whole idea, right?

Before we mouth off, in our wonderfully benighted 2013 (compared to the entire lifespan of EVs), we might just wanna think about how ignorant we’re gonna sound 25 years from now…

(PS – I don’t own Tesla stock, or any EV of any kind. If I did own an EV, I’d be driving it around locally. I wouldn’t be driving it around and around a parking lot, looking for a space – as I do now with my combustion cars, to minimize my walk. I’d understand the CURRENT limitations of my EV, park right away, and (gasp) walk an additional 100 feet (double gasp) to the entrance of my destination. It’s called “adjusting to the way the machine works until the technology improves. What a concept!)

There is nothing silly about this whatsoever, and this is not the era of the Model T. It is the era of the *Model S*, the most sophisticated car on Earth, a spaceship on wheels designed and built in Silicon Valley, USA. It is the first production electric car capable of reaching 300 miles on a charge, which makes it very much a vehicle of TODAY — not “tomorrow” — and it doesn’t deserved to be smeared for the sake of story in the New York Times. After all, it just wouldn’t do to write a boring article about driving from Washington to Boston, so why not create something with a little pizzaz? That is what I think happened here with Mr. Broder. Maybe he thought it was funny at the time. Maybe he thought his editor would appreciate a little controversy? Well he certainly got more than he bargained for!

Broder failed to “fill the tank”, ran around in circles (and not to find a parking space) and then ran out of juice. Then he wrote the article in such a way as to blame the car. Result: Investors in Tesla, EVs and advanced batteries turn away. Perfectly capable EVs are set back another decade at a time when it is vital that we begin to ramp up electric transportation NOW. It is about Energy Security, Oil-financed Terrorism, a balance of payments — half of which is caused by imported oil — that is stifling our economy, and it is about Global Warming. And yes, EVs reduce GW, even when their electricity comes from fossil fuels.

There is nothing silly about any of this.

This machine *works* and it requires very little “adjusting” to operate, refuel or park. It is leading the way for newer generations of cars that will be more affordable for the median car buyer, and it will not require 25 years to get there. Please think about that a little bit more as you are walking back from your distant parking space.

We considered it…But temperatures warmer there now (25 to 40 Fahrenheit) that this run doesn’t quite line up with the conditions when Broder drove (10-ish Fahrenheit). But here’s a link the the Twitter feed if you’d like to read up on it:

The real story to me is strength AND weakness of the SuperCharger Network. I would love to have seen a graph like that provided by Fleetcarma to adjust for temperature differences as an education of the weakness, but not to take away from the real story of strength.

Are there scenarios of deficiency in driving completely “free” on the solar powered SuperCharger Network, provided by a single manufacturer? Well of course.

But will this interstate wide plan of free solar powered SuperChargers be feasible for the majority of driver conditions? The answer is an astounding YES!

No EV manufacturer has come even close. That is the story of this week end drive. Apples and oranges? Fair enough. It at least proves that even with the current separation of 200 miles, it is functional in the Northeast in “much” of the winter months. And painting the picture of being stranded when you pass numerous public chargers is a false one. This is the single point that was misrepresented by the NYT. Not that whether any of the conditions are the same or not, and possible imperfections are totally newsworthy. The implication that “you might be stranded” is the worst of journalism when known fueling stations were passed.

Although not infallible, the first EV solar powered SuperCharger highway IS a reality proven by week end warriors.